For or against recurrents?

[musicfanpete]

With different versions of the Mediabase Hot AC chart floating around (or other formats for that matter), what type of chart would most of you prefer? The charts that move songs to the separate designated recurrent chart. or the more accurate,but much more excrutiatingly slow moving chart that includes all songs no matter how long they've been around (basically the American Top 40 version)?

I'll start off the discussion by saying that it's a tough call for me. The official charts that remove songs to the recurrent chart allow for more songs to chart, but they don't accurately portray what's really being played on radio at a current time. Some great songs may miss the recurrent inclusive chart, but using that school of thought, a song needs to earn a spot on that chart. Therefore, if a song needs to earn several hundred additional plays to make this recurrent inclusive chart, so be it. What do all think about this?

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I think when it comes to radio shows like AT40 and stuff, there should be a recurrent rule. But when it comes to actual charts that have the purpose of showing accuracy, a recurrent rule isn't necessary. However, it's fine that there is one because generally there's also a recurrent chart so people can put together the actual accurate non-recurrent-version chart if they are so inclined.

I'll vote FOR recurrent rule though. It gives attention to songs that otherwise may not make it.

[620 Soul Train]

I am for the recurrent rule most definately because the chart removes older songs from the playlist. It allows promoters and radio programmers (IMO, anyway) to concentrate on the tracks that are growing and devolping.With that said they (radio programmers) would be to able determine which of the songs should remain or be deleted from their playlists. And also which one of the records should be spun more or less often.

[Johnser]

I am personally against the recurrents. I am probably old school in my thinking, but I think both of Seacrest's shows need to go by the real Mediabase 24/7 chart. That and some songs that are getting in to the top 40 on Mediabase aren't getting on Ryan's shows till sometimes weeks later, and in some cases, not at all. For example, "Vertigo" by U2 in 2004, and "Energy" by Natalie in 2005. I'm sure there are more, but these are just two examples.

[shocker]

Keep the recurrents separate. Seeing the same song on the chart for 50 + weeks - even if it's still receiving a good amount of airplay - is monotonous.

[johnnywest]

I'm against recurrents. I say get rid of them ASAP. I like the way that Mediabase retooled their rule on the AC chart. They're making it more difficult for songs to stay on as long as they used to.

[musicfanpete]

johnnywest said:

I'm against recurrents. I say get rid of them ASAP. I like the way that Mediabase retooled their rule on the AC chart. They're making it more difficult for songs to stay on as long as they used to.

By saying you liked the way AC retooled their chart, you mean you're in favor of them getting rid of songs over 52 weeks old once they drop out of the top 5, correct?

[atlantaboy]

I think the reason shows like AT40 and Rick Dees don't get rid of recurrents when Mediabase Chart does IMO is so the show will sound more like the radio station that's airing it, and the station isn't taking as much of a risk by playing songs on the tail end of the "countdown" that aren't that popular, or aren't that popular yet - plus, radio stations don't like to play songs on countdown shows that they haven't added themselves yet

[Kid Pulse]

I agree. I think it's "safe" to have "Chasing Cars" and "How to Save a Life" in the top 20 instead of having "Hollywood" and "Bubbly" in the top 40 (haven't even heard that last one yet).

Although I can't say I prefer it. Is the question asking would I RATHER see it without recurrents (like AT20 with Casey removes them) or keep them like AT40 with Seacrest. Or is it a question of SHOULD they?

[musicfanpete]

video545 said:

I agree. I think it's "safe" to have "Chasing Cars" and "How to Save a Life" in the top 20 instead of having "Hollywood" and "Bubbly" in the top 40 (haven't even heard that last one yet).

Although I can't say I prefer it. Is the question asking would I RATHER see it without recurrents (like AT20 with Casey removes them) or keep them like AT40 with Seacrest. Or is it a question of SHOULD they?

No, the question was what would you rather see. The radio powers I'm sure will do what THEY feel is right whether we agree with them or not!

[Kid Pulse]

Hahah well in that case it's without recurrents, although it would seem weird for songs to fall off of a top 40 chart after being #13 or something the week before, I could live with it!

[musicfanpete]

video545 said:

Hahah well in that case it's without recurrents, although it would seem weird for songs to fall off of a top 40 chart after being #13 or something the week before, I could live with it!

Yeah, that's my concern as well. However, with songs moving so slowly up and down the chart, I think this is a necessity. Still though, there will always be recurrents that get significantly more airplay than many of the newer songs. Just the nature of the business I suppose.

[Hot AC Archiver]

I think countdown shows should have a recurrent rule in order to keep the shows fresh and interesting. However, official charts should no have recurrent rules in order to be more accurate of what's actually being played. A radio station should not have to see a song on the chart before deciding they should play it IMHO. If it's a good song, and it fits the format, go ahead and try it out and see how listeners react.

In the early part of this decade when Casey was doing AT40, AT40 had its own mysterious recurrent rule. "Doesn't Really Matter" by Janet was #10 one week and then removed from the entire chart the next!